Don't let the writer have veto rights on a review, but guarantee him a slot to post his unmodified responses to the review, immediately following the review.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree completely. The key to avoiding any unpleasantness is open and honest communication between reviewer and author. I don't expect or want reviewers giving an absolute rave on every work they see. What would be the point? They must be honest and tell it like they see it. The author should know this up front. On the other hand, the reviewer should also consider the feelings of the author (I imagine the reviewers are feeling like they are walking a tightrope). I NEVER want to see a "my God, this is the worst piece of crap I've ever read" review. The idea is to foster feedback and make everyone who particapates a better writer, reader, ect.
To all authors considering submitting your work, if you can't stand the heat, don't get in the kitchen. There will be criticism. Constructive criticism, but it is criticism none the less.
Since I have been very vocal in getting this project off the ground, maybe I should go under the microscope first. I'd feel like a hypocrite if I just sat here telling other authors, "it's constructive criticism, what's your problem?" I was reluctant to submit my work not because of a fear of criticism, but I didn't want this project to seem clique-ish. It's not. I just feel since I started it I should be the first to undergo the procedure. It may prove to be a valuable learning experiance for us all, and help to prevent problems down the road.
Peter: Sorry to cut in line, your next.
And now a word from your Mod...
Once again I have to commend the readers on a fine initiative, even though it's an initiative that can be fraught with peril. Watching this thread on Feedback segue into a platform to review AARs has proven to be an interesting genesis.
Many thoughtful concepts have been bandied about over the past dozen or so posts, and while I am more than happy to leave the details with their originators, I feel just a wee bit compelled to add my 2 ducats worth.
First and foremost the whole project should be approached with a modicum of restraint. The intent is not to injure, but to educate. I know we all have the best of intentions, and much has been said about positive reinforcement, but I would urge a level headed approach to the job with the aim to bolster, rather than alienate, the author and his work.
Approaching authors about reviewing their AAR beforehand is a very good idea. I would take it a step further and suggest establishing review levels, like basic, average, and advanced. The author could choose what flavour they would prefer. Basic could be a general overview of the AAR, something that provides a brief look that highlights and goes no further. Average could be a more in-depth look at a work, including some analysis and suggestions for improvement. Advanced would cover the rare cases where an author sincerely desires to improve their craft, and is willing to undergo a reasonably thorough analysis/critique of their composition.
Allowing an author a chance to respond to a review is a must. Sometimes the intent of an AAR, or a certain event or character, can be totally lost on the reviewer. I think this is extremely important, especially for those authors who use English as a second language. Ideas can be lost, misinterpreted or scrambled in the translation, and clarification could be necessary.
Craig posed a list of questions, some of which I'd like to provide input to:
1. How many reviews should we do in a given time frame? (one a week, twice a month)
I would suggest one or two a week. I would further suggest it would be split among one completed, and one on-going. Note, the on-going should have a minimum number of posts. In other words, it should be active and not a one off that has been abandoned after two or three entries.
2. Should we ask the thread be limited to reviewer and author? (in order to allow for several reviews a week on the same thread)
I would suggest the reviewer has his say, the author is allowed to respond/clarify, and then anyone else who has comments would be welcome to add them.
3. Should we limit it to completed AARs or maybe only ongoing AARs (since this all started by talking about feedback)?
See 1
4. Should we do a seperate thread for each review?
Not right away. I would rather gauge the response of a typical review before we clutter the board with short threads.
* * *
Providing a level playing field for a review is a must. A blanket statement like 'He's a demigod' frankly makes me run for the hills, and I'll have trouble believing there's no bias in any subsequent reviews. Therefore, a potential reviewer should be credible, unbiased, open to various styles and techniques, knowledgeable and no cliquish fanboy of one or two particular authors.
Finally, I wish to address the potentially dangerous part of this endeavour. As has been mentioned, and I'll stress, the reviews will not be used for bashing, self promotion, finger pointing or name-calling. I take pride in running an AAR Forum that is very well-behaved and populated with a great collection of intelligent writers. I intend it to remain that way. If I receive any complaints of any nature based on this idea, then I'll have to seriously reassess the whole initiative. Though I have absolutely no problem remaining in the background, letting some of the higher profile members receive all the accolades, I still have a responsibility to the well-being of this forum and the people who use it. I'm sure you will all understand.
Now, some thoughts have been advanced regarding reviewing and/or potential critiquing techniques. It's very important you establish a series of groundrules before this project is green-lighted.
I have already suggested categories of reviews, which I think would go a long way toward pairing an author with a style he/she is comfortable with. Face it, most people don't like criticism. However...
Critiquing, by its very nature, is an extremely humbling experience that can bring the most prolific author to their knees. How do I know this? Well, when I'm not Modding this forum and writing my own (and apparently neglected works based on what people read and save to their HD) material, I contribute to several writer's workshops. The whole raison d'etre for these groups is to rip apart an author's work with the intent of providing brutal, yet constructive criticism in an effort to improve the final result. It is not for the squeamish, and a thick skin is a definite necessity. However, the end result is the satisfaction in seeing an author get published and knowing you had a small part in their development.
What's that mean? Well, probably squat to some of you, but it qualifies my background as a writer and as someone who has a thorough knowledge of reviewing and critiquing. Does this mean that I'll be an active participant? Perhaps. However, if someone wishes to have their work honestly 'critiqued', then I'll see what I can do.
As for reviewing my work, feel free. Apparently I need the press...
Once again I have to commend the readers on a fine initiative, even though it's an initiative that can be fraught with peril. Watching this thread on Feedback segue into a platform to review AARs has proven to be an interesting genesis.
Many thoughtful concepts have been bandied about over the past dozen or so posts, and while I am more than happy to leave the details with their originators, I feel just a wee bit compelled to add my 2 ducats worth.
First and foremost the whole project should be approached with a modicum of restraint. The intent is not to injure, but to educate. I know we all have the best of intentions, and much has been said about positive reinforcement, but I would urge a level headed approach to the job with the aim to bolster, rather than alienate, the author and his work.
Approaching authors about reviewing their AAR beforehand is a very good idea. I would take it a step further and suggest establishing review levels, like basic, average, and advanced. The author could choose what flavour they would prefer. Basic could be a general overview of the AAR, something that provides a brief look that highlights and goes no further. Average could be a more in-depth look at a work, including some analysis and suggestions for improvement. Advanced would cover the rare cases where an author sincerely desires to improve their craft, and is willing to undergo a reasonably thorough analysis/critique of their composition.
Allowing an author a chance to respond to a review is a must. Sometimes the intent of an AAR, or a certain event or character, can be totally lost on the reviewer. I think this is extremely important, especially for those authors who use English as a second language. Ideas can be lost, misinterpreted or scrambled in the translation, and clarification could be necessary.
Craig posed a list of questions, some of which I'd like to provide input to:
1. How many reviews should we do in a given time frame? (one a week, twice a month)
I would suggest one or two a week. I would further suggest it would be split among one completed, and one on-going. Note, the on-going should have a minimum number of posts. In other words, it should be active and not a one off that has been abandoned after two or three entries.
2. Should we ask the thread be limited to reviewer and author? (in order to allow for several reviews a week on the same thread)
I would suggest the reviewer has his say, the author is allowed to respond/clarify, and then anyone else who has comments would be welcome to add them.
3. Should we limit it to completed AARs or maybe only ongoing AARs (since this all started by talking about feedback)?
See 1
4. Should we do a seperate thread for each review?
Not right away. I would rather gauge the response of a typical review before we clutter the board with short threads.
* * *
Providing a level playing field for a review is a must. A blanket statement like 'He's a demigod' frankly makes me run for the hills, and I'll have trouble believing there's no bias in any subsequent reviews. Therefore, a potential reviewer should be credible, unbiased, open to various styles and techniques, knowledgeable and no cliquish fanboy of one or two particular authors.
Finally, I wish to address the potentially dangerous part of this endeavour. As has been mentioned, and I'll stress, the reviews will not be used for bashing, self promotion, finger pointing or name-calling. I take pride in running an AAR Forum that is very well-behaved and populated with a great collection of intelligent writers. I intend it to remain that way. If I receive any complaints of any nature based on this idea, then I'll have to seriously reassess the whole initiative. Though I have absolutely no problem remaining in the background, letting some of the higher profile members receive all the accolades, I still have a responsibility to the well-being of this forum and the people who use it. I'm sure you will all understand.
Now, some thoughts have been advanced regarding reviewing and/or potential critiquing techniques. It's very important you establish a series of groundrules before this project is green-lighted.
I have already suggested categories of reviews, which I think would go a long way toward pairing an author with a style he/she is comfortable with. Face it, most people don't like criticism. However...
Critiquing, by its very nature, is an extremely humbling experience that can bring the most prolific author to their knees. How do I know this? Well, when I'm not Modding this forum and writing my own (and apparently neglected works based on what people read and save to their HD) material, I contribute to several writer's workshops. The whole raison d'etre for these groups is to rip apart an author's work with the intent of providing brutal, yet constructive criticism in an effort to improve the final result. It is not for the squeamish, and a thick skin is a definite necessity. However, the end result is the satisfaction in seeing an author get published and knowing you had a small part in their development.
What's that mean? Well, probably squat to some of you, but it qualifies my background as a writer and as someone who has a thorough knowledge of reviewing and critiquing. Does this mean that I'll be an active participant? Perhaps. However, if someone wishes to have their work honestly 'critiqued', then I'll see what I can do.
As for reviewing my work, feel free. Apparently I need the press...
I'm sure that Lord Durham wasn't singling me out 
for his wrath (well, it wasn't wrath, really--more like an icy glare... ) but he did use something I had said to illustrate his point:
Since I am the one who called Peter Ebbesen a demigod, and I am also on tap to do a review, I want to make sure it is understood...
Yes, I do admire the Professor's work, and I would probably defer to him on a lot of points of game mechanics. But his work wouldn't be reviewed on that basis. My first sentence on the subject was self-deprecating and at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek. On its own, it may lead to questions about my reviews. Reading the rest of my original statement, however, I said:
I've admitted elsewhere that formal literary criticism of the type LD describes (writers workshops, for one) is not my strongest suit. I'm therefore a bit hesitant about reviewing, and in particular about going first. However, I'm also not completely unqualified. My own writing is of passable quality and I read voraciously. I also used to run the toy and game division of an educational publishing company, where I had a fair degree of experience giving constructive criticism on a variety of creative expression ranging from textual to graphic. Plus, I did quite a bit of proofreading, some editing, lots of research and fact-checking, and a fair amount of actual writing. Believe me, in that context, I am not going to sacrifice whatever credibility I may have to give anyone a 'cliquish fanboy' review.
To reiterate, I don't think LD was singling me out, just using the first example that came to mind. (LD, if you were singling me out, let me know if you still hold that opinion of me and I'll endeavor to improve it )
And to offer somewhat of a countervailing opinion -- the weight of accumulated cautions, caveats, and provisos (including my own) regarding the reviews is starting to feel a bit overwhelming. Perhaps I'm feeling it acutely because I'm supposed to do one of the reviews. Nevertheless, I think we've gotten a lot of good advice and wisdom out there. Let's not overdo it and scare people away from participating or following the results!
After all, authors (myself included) aren't made of glass. The act of posting an AAR on a public forum implies at least some willingness to entertain feedback, and agreeing to be reviewed (with informed consent as to what that will mean) turns the implication into definitive consent. Of course, anyone involved in any aspect of this who abuses, harasses, or in some other way violates the spirit of community can and should be dealt with according to the normal forum rules. (And the mods do a great job in that respect!) But that doesn't mean that reviews are automatically going to pull all the talentless would-be dictators and hacks out of the woodwork...
By the way--I've played a lot of roleplaying games. So to me, a demigod is actually the lowest rank of deity. Kind of like being an Assistant Vice President in a US big corporation. It was certainly a compliment, but not as much of one as you might think...
for his wrath (well, it wasn't wrath, really--more like an icy glare... ) but he did use something I had said to illustrate his point:Since I am the one who called Peter Ebbesen a demigod, and I am also on tap to do a review, I want to make sure it is understood...
Yes, I do admire the Professor's work, and I would probably defer to him on a lot of points of game mechanics. But his work wouldn't be reviewed on that basis. My first sentence on the subject was self-deprecating and at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek. On its own, it may lead to questions about my reviews. Reading the rest of my original statement, however, I said:
I've admitted elsewhere that formal literary criticism of the type LD describes (writers workshops, for one) is not my strongest suit. I'm therefore a bit hesitant about reviewing, and in particular about going first. However, I'm also not completely unqualified. My own writing is of passable quality and I read voraciously. I also used to run the toy and game division of an educational publishing company, where I had a fair degree of experience giving constructive criticism on a variety of creative expression ranging from textual to graphic. Plus, I did quite a bit of proofreading, some editing, lots of research and fact-checking, and a fair amount of actual writing. Believe me, in that context, I am not going to sacrifice whatever credibility I may have to give anyone a 'cliquish fanboy' review.
To reiterate, I don't think LD was singling me out, just using the first example that came to mind. (LD, if you were singling me out, let me know if you still hold that opinion of me and I'll endeavor to improve it
) And to offer somewhat of a countervailing opinion -- the weight of accumulated cautions, caveats, and provisos (including my own) regarding the reviews is starting to feel a bit overwhelming. Perhaps I'm feeling it acutely because I'm supposed to do one of the reviews. Nevertheless, I think we've gotten a lot of good advice and wisdom out there. Let's not overdo it and scare people away from participating or following the results!
After all, authors (myself included) aren't made of glass. The act of posting an AAR on a public forum implies at least some willingness to entertain feedback, and agreeing to be reviewed (with informed consent as to what that will mean) turns the implication into definitive consent. Of course, anyone involved in any aspect of this who abuses, harasses, or in some other way violates the spirit of community can and should be dealt with according to the normal forum rules. (And the mods do a great job in that respect!) But that doesn't mean that reviews are automatically going to pull all the talentless would-be dictators and hacks out of the woodwork...
By the way--I've played a lot of roleplaying games. So to me, a demigod is actually the lowest rank of deity. Kind of like being an Assistant Vice President in a US big corporation. It was certainly a compliment, but not as much of one as you might think...
I'd like to chime in and expand on some things LD said.
You hit the nail on the head with this one. And it gets even more complicated when you consider the writers we have here. People who do alot of writing in real-life (college students in creative writing clubs, writer's classes, etc.) have things hard enough when the meaningful story/poem they have worked so hard on is torn to pieces by a critique. Now, imagine writers here, who dont do this very often, and who have never been critiqued before in their lives. It would be enough to silence many potential voices around here. And that's just with constructive criticism....
And it also reflects the opposite effect, what some people with much more impressive degrees in literature than I have called the "Intentional Fallacy." The short version is that no matter what the author intends, what matters is what they wrote down. If what they intended does not match the effect produced from the words upon the page, then even if people think the writing is good, then it still needs work. This does not mean that what the author intends is not important, but it's worth mentioning this since we have a number of English as a second language folks around here.
I guess I should ask you, LD, if in your opinion the writers/potential reviewers that would be involved in this are mature enough to handle this? Clearly, maturity is the key here. (Or is it?)
Important EDIT:
You also bring up, very indirectly, another point I think it is worth making. There is sometimes a big difference between popular writing and quality writing. In all cases they do not include one another. (A quick glance at the bestseller list in any country will indicate that the next Shakespeares are not the best sellers in many cases.) For our purposes, this means that our reviewers and writers must acknowledge that difference before the first review is written. This is because a very popular piece may still get torn to pieces under critique, while another piece may get rave reviews, despite poor readership. Also, considering the diversity of our audience, reviewers taking a short look at a work would be well advised to let their own readers know things like "... if you like Monty Python, this AAR is for you... " or "...those looking for a quick, easy to digest AAR should skip this one, as it is very in-depth and serious in nature...".
You hit the nail on the head with this one. And it gets even more complicated when you consider the writers we have here. People who do alot of writing in real-life (college students in creative writing clubs, writer's classes, etc.) have things hard enough when the meaningful story/poem they have worked so hard on is torn to pieces by a critique. Now, imagine writers here, who dont do this very often, and who have never been critiqued before in their lives. It would be enough to silence many potential voices around here. And that's just with constructive criticism....
And it also reflects the opposite effect, what some people with much more impressive degrees in literature than I have called the "Intentional Fallacy." The short version is that no matter what the author intends, what matters is what they wrote down. If what they intended does not match the effect produced from the words upon the page, then even if people think the writing is good, then it still needs work. This does not mean that what the author intends is not important, but it's worth mentioning this since we have a number of English as a second language folks around here.
I guess I should ask you, LD, if in your opinion the writers/potential reviewers that would be involved in this are mature enough to handle this? Clearly, maturity is the key here. (Or is it?)
Important EDIT:
You also bring up, very indirectly, another point I think it is worth making. There is sometimes a big difference between popular writing and quality writing. In all cases they do not include one another. (A quick glance at the bestseller list in any country will indicate that the next Shakespeares are not the best sellers in many cases.) For our purposes, this means that our reviewers and writers must acknowledge that difference before the first review is written. This is because a very popular piece may still get torn to pieces under critique, while another piece may get rave reviews, despite poor readership. Also, considering the diversity of our audience, reviewers taking a short look at a work would be well advised to let their own readers know things like "... if you like Monty Python, this AAR is for you... " or "...those looking for a quick, easy to digest AAR should skip this one, as it is very in-depth and serious in nature...".
Last edited:
A few notes and comments on LD's post,
Great idea. That should go a long way towards avoiding any hurt feelings.
I agree 100%. Also let me take this time to let you know as the organizer of this project, I WON'T TOLERATE ANY OF THAT CRAP EITHER. I've tried to be careful as to who I have asked to join this endevor, so I am pretty confident there will be no problems.
LD, if you are interested you are more than welcome. As I said before, the only reason I didn't approach you earlier is I assumed you were rather busy with your mod duties. Even if you can only be a part-time member, your input is always greatly appreciated.
Great idea. That should go a long way towards avoiding any hurt feelings.
I agree 100%. Also let me take this time to let you know as the organizer of this project, I WON'T TOLERATE ANY OF THAT CRAP EITHER. I've tried to be careful as to who I have asked to join this endevor, so I am pretty confident there will be no problems.
LD, if you are interested you are more than welcome. As I said before, the only reason I didn't approach you earlier is I assumed you were rather busy with your mod duties. Even if you can only be a part-time member, your input is always greatly appreciated.
Rest assured, it wasn't purposeful. However, that particular comment raised a warning flag, and I felt it important to make my feelings known on this. I think you'd agree that reviews based on that criteria would be self-serving and contain little merit.Originally posted by Morlac
To reiterate, I don't think LD was singling me out, just using the first example that came to mind. (LD, if you were singling me out, let me know if you still hold that opinion of me and I'll endeavor to improve it
Just because I have a background in critiquing certainly doesn't mean that everyone who volunteers to write a review should. However, by virtue of my experience I'm well aware of the pitfalls that a project like this could easily embrace. My caution is not based on scaring people away, but more on 'let's do it right from the beginning'.
Anyway, I don't question your credentials or background, and I'm sure you will do a bang-up job.
Thank God you didn't put me on the spot, SM
Maturity is definitely the key. However, I'm only familiar with one writer who's currently involved with this, and that's due to several collaborations over the past few months. I really don't feel it prudent to answer the question. However, I will be reading. Excellent point, SM, and well made. One of the gaming sites includes a rating for 'reviewer's tilt'. In other words, is the piece the reviewer looking at his cup of tea, or is he not really interested in writing about it and going through the motions. Actually, that brings up another point about reviewing favourites only, but I'll leave that open for discussion.
Thanks, but my input may not always be appreciated.
As I stated earlier, I'll likely leave well enough alone. However, there may be the odd person who desires an in-depth look at their work, especially if they are serious about expanding their literary talents. Chances are I would do it off-line, anyway. As stated, the process is brutal. The astute reader has probably noticed that my posts to their AAR usually, but not always, tend toward the literary style and substance, characterisation and plot, as opposed to questions about gameplay. Some habits die hard... 
I´d rather get bad reviews than none at all, but that´s just my opinion.
As it is now, only the ones who have already written AARs get any response at all, it seems.
Of course this will discourage any potential writer and lead to there only being a couple, since what´s the point of writing when no one tells you what they think?
I wouldn´t write for myself but even if I did, I sure wouldn´t post it here.
Oleg
EDIT: see my sig.
As it is now, only the ones who have already written AARs get any response at all, it seems.
Of course this will discourage any potential writer and lead to there only being a couple, since what´s the point of writing when no one tells you what they think?
I wouldn´t write for myself but even if I did, I sure wouldn´t post it here.
Oleg
EDIT: see my sig.
*sigh*
Those are very unfair statements.
There has been an incredible proliferation of new writers lately, and a fair amount of churn among the established writers. In other words, there's fewer of the veterans left here to go around. That's most visible with my Free Company RPG. Its gone from 20 active members to a half-dozen, all though attrition. I've only managed to gain one new writer, so it looks like a long-standing tradition on this board will soon die.
There's only so much we can read and comment on at a time. There's a handful of us that do our best to welcome each new member, however, patience must be a virtue.
The board is littered with 'one-post' AARs that receive lots of initial attention, only to have the author wander off to some other game and never return. So, in a lot of cases we look for some perseverance before commenting. It takes a while to build an audience for an AAR, whether it's a newcomer or a veteran.
If you want interaction, here's a couple of basics:
Network - visit other AARs, read them and comment. If you show interest in theirs, they're more than likely to return the favour. Sitting back waiting for the world to come to you will not always work. If they don't return the favour, then try other AARs.
Respond - if someone offers feedback, respond to it. After all, if a person takes the time to read and comment on your work, the least you can do is acknowledge them.
Visit the bAAR and interact. Get to know the other writers. Most of us are a bunch of guys that are quite easy to get along with.
This particular thread is a case in point. It was created as a question on feedback by a relative newcomer. Instead of pointing fingers, Craig became proactive and has since become a very active member of the community.
Frankly, you're AAR has generated a lot of feedback. There's a few vets around here who wish they could be so lucky.
Okay. That does it. Now you get to see something you rarely see...a pissed off MrT.
I simply can’t sit here any longer reading this Bull, Newbies don’t get read? Newbies don’t get any replies? Give me a break! I defy a newbie who started a thread sometime before this week to show me a thread where at least a couple so-called veterans haven’t put in a comment or two. Find one, for instance, that I haven’t posted to. Yes, it’s been a really bad week at the office and I have fallen horribly behind in my reading of newbie and veteran AARs alike. Anyone who’s started an AAR since last Saturday has probably not yet had a visit from me. But to accuse or condemn veterans of ignoring newbies and sticking to their own little “clique” is so completely out of line that I can’t tell you how angry it makes me.
Try, just for fun, clicking on the “search” button sometime below a post made by a “veteran”. What you’ll get is a complete list of every post they have ever made on this board. Every single one. Then take a look at them and see how many newbies are being ignored. Another fun one: click on the “replies” number in the forum thread listing (the one where it shows how many replies each thread has had). You’ll get a pop-up box that lists each person who has replied to the thread, and how often. Have a look at the names there and tell me again how ignored you are by the veterans.
Let me highlight something that Lord Durham said above, because it is obviously escaping the narrow attention span of the whiners:
With the huge number of AARs recently, how can any of us stay up with them? As you’ll read in this thread, I spent my entire Saturday last weekend trying to catch up…13+ hours of reading and posting. I could have been writing my own AAR, but I didn’t because I thought it was more important to support other people’s work. Apparently I am very misguided. All I need to do is read a few of the verterans’ posts.
By way of comparison, Oleg – who made what I consider to be the most asinine statement I have read in a very long time in his post above – has posted a grand total of 8 comments to AARs in his entire time on the board. That’s right. Eight! In that same period of time I’ve posted something in the vicinity of 1000-1500 replies to the AARs of veterans and newbies alike. How do I know this? The ol’ “search” button again. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is.
So there’s a lesson for you folks: if you want to be read, then spend some time doing some reading and replying yourself. As you can tell from my mood, the deplorable lack of interest in my own AAR has a pretty negative impact on my willingness to continue reading all of your work. It’s not that I don’t enjoy it, and do it willingly and happily, but to have someone criticize me for not responding instantly to every single new AAR that pops up here is so absurd and infuriating that I could just spit. And, for the record, it took me a whole 2 hours to notice Oleg’s new AAR, read it, and reply. You have a problem with that? See a shrink!
Yes. I’m pissed off because I’ve had a lousy week. But I look at these complaints and see how distressing this is for the extremely hard working Lord Durham, and how incredibly unjust it is to the other “veteran” authors who are generally busting their butts to welcome newcomers who can’t even be bothered to return the favour 99% of the time… Well, before you complain, look in the mirror and ask the person you see whether he’s doing anything to garner or deserve the attention he craves.
Then come and criticize me.
(note the lack of any emotion other than "" )
edited for younger readers(warspite)
I simply can’t sit here any longer reading this Bull, Newbies don’t get read? Newbies don’t get any replies? Give me a break! I defy a newbie who started a thread sometime before this week to show me a thread where at least a couple so-called veterans haven’t put in a comment or two. Find one, for instance, that I haven’t posted to. Yes, it’s been a really bad week at the office and I have fallen horribly behind in my reading of newbie and veteran AARs alike. Anyone who’s started an AAR since last Saturday has probably not yet had a visit from me. But to accuse or condemn veterans of ignoring newbies and sticking to their own little “clique” is so completely out of line that I can’t tell you how angry it makes me.
Try, just for fun, clicking on the “search” button sometime below a post made by a “veteran”. What you’ll get is a complete list of every post they have ever made on this board. Every single one. Then take a look at them and see how many newbies are being ignored. Another fun one: click on the “replies” number in the forum thread listing (the one where it shows how many replies each thread has had). You’ll get a pop-up box that lists each person who has replied to the thread, and how often. Have a look at the names there and tell me again how ignored you are by the veterans.
Let me highlight something that Lord Durham said above, because it is obviously escaping the narrow attention span of the whiners:
If I rigorously applied that modus operandi I would be reading precisely 32 AARs right now – some more often than others – instead of trying to keep up with the 90-100 that I’m reading now. If the reverse were true, I would have something like 90-100 replies after each instalment that I write for my AAR instead of being absolutely thrilled to get as many as half a dozen (current count, 3 replies in ~ 2 days since my last instalment, 2 of them in the last couple hours). Just for fun, I should try that some time.
With the huge number of AARs recently, how can any of us stay up with them? As you’ll read in this thread, I spent my entire Saturday last weekend trying to catch up…13+ hours of reading and posting. I could have been writing my own AAR, but I didn’t because I thought it was more important to support other people’s work. Apparently I am very misguided. All I need to do is read a few of the verterans’ posts.
By way of comparison, Oleg – who made what I consider to be the most asinine statement I have read in a very long time in his post above – has posted a grand total of 8 comments to AARs in his entire time on the board. That’s right. Eight! In that same period of time I’ve posted something in the vicinity of 1000-1500 replies to the AARs of veterans and newbies alike. How do I know this? The ol’ “search” button again. If that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is.
So there’s a lesson for you folks: if you want to be read, then spend some time doing some reading and replying yourself. As you can tell from my mood, the deplorable lack of interest in my own AAR has a pretty negative impact on my willingness to continue reading all of your work. It’s not that I don’t enjoy it, and do it willingly and happily, but to have someone criticize me for not responding instantly to every single new AAR that pops up here is so absurd and infuriating that I could just spit. And, for the record, it took me a whole 2 hours to notice Oleg’s new AAR, read it, and reply. You have a problem with that? See a shrink!
Yes. I’m pissed off because I’ve had a lousy week. But I look at these complaints and see how distressing this is for the extremely hard working Lord Durham, and how incredibly unjust it is to the other “veteran” authors who are generally busting their butts to welcome newcomers who can’t even be bothered to return the favour 99% of the time… Well, before you complain, look in the mirror and ask the person you see whether he’s doing anything to garner or deserve the attention he craves.
Then come and criticize me.
(note the lack of any emotion other than "
" )edited for younger readers(warspite)
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh. And...
...no, that wasn't just a blatent psychological ploy to try to get you to read my AAR. Read it or don't read it; whatever turns you on. Just don't give me shit for not reading yours.
...no, that wasn't just a blatent psychological ploy to try to get you to read my AAR. Read it or don't read it; whatever turns you on. Just don't give me shit for not reading yours.
Oleg,
All I can say is note LD's comments on networking. You have not had as many comments as you'd like because you insist on confining yourself to one AAR--yours. The best way to promote your work is to see and be seen, even if it's just a "hi there" post.
I had been a regular reading and commenting on AARs from EU1 before I ever started my first AAR, I stuck my head in Ariel's original England AAR, LD's Seven Years War and others. IMHO, it's because I had established myself as a presence on the EU board long before I ever STARTED my first AAR that people took notice.
My point, same as LD's. You want to be read, branch out from your own AAR. Period. I've already had my one "morality" conflict for the day, so I'll pass on examining whether or not this expecting to be read without reading others would qualify as "selfishness."
All I can say is note LD's comments on networking. You have not had as many comments as you'd like because you insist on confining yourself to one AAR--yours. The best way to promote your work is to see and be seen, even if it's just a "hi there" post.
I had been a regular reading and commenting on AARs from EU1 before I ever started my first AAR, I stuck my head in Ariel's original England AAR, LD's Seven Years War and others. IMHO, it's because I had established myself as a presence on the EU board long before I ever STARTED my first AAR that people took notice.
My point, same as LD's. You want to be read, branch out from your own AAR. Period. I've already had my one "morality" conflict for the day, so I'll pass on examining whether or not this expecting to be read without reading others would qualify as "selfishness."
Oleg,
I must stand up and defend LD and MrT. Of all the people on the board, these two are the most visible in supporting many different AARs. I admit I do not respond to all of them, but I try to say something in a number of them. I have read at least 3/4 of the AARs that are up here. However, those two are the best there is at popping in and rgiving a bit of feedback to each and every story out here.
I have found that responding to others does encourage others to respond to mine. My second AAR has gotten a lot more response then the first one and I am pretty sure that whatever small skills I have as a writer didn't improve, just my effort to do more then read the other AARs, but to respond to a lot of them.
I must stand up and defend LD and MrT. Of all the people on the board, these two are the most visible in supporting many different AARs. I admit I do not respond to all of them, but I try to say something in a number of them. I have read at least 3/4 of the AARs that are up here. However, those two are the best there is at popping in and rgiving a bit of feedback to each and every story out here.
I have found that responding to others does encourage others to respond to mine. My second AAR has gotten a lot more response then the first one and I am pretty sure that whatever small skills I have as a writer didn't improve, just my effort to do more then read the other AARs, but to respond to a lot of them.
Write about the Pope: They'll read it right away.
On a more serious note (ugh, I usualy save this kind of stuff for the AARs ) I think that, if you want replies, post things in their stories. They'll wonder "Hmm... I don't remember reading his stuff. I wonder how good it is?" (Well not really, but at least you'll be helping the AAR-reply market circulate, and that will help. Maybe I could become a reply broker... )
On a more serious note (ugh, I usualy save this kind of stuff for the AARs
) I think that, if you want replies, post things in their stories. They'll wonder "Hmm... I don't remember reading his stuff. I wonder how good it is?" (Well not really, but at least you'll be helping the AAR-reply market circulate, and that will help. Maybe I could become a reply broker... )
I suppose that I fall into the middle ground somewhere between newbie and veteran, probably far closer to newbie.
I will say that I felt very welcome on this board when I first signed on and continue to feel welcome. I have participated in one other game board and cannot speak for their quality, in general, the other was discouraging, but this experience has been fantastic.
I have read and enjoyed thoroughly many of the AARs on this board. I promise to make a sincere effort from this point on to offer more incouragement to those who are writing.
I will say that I felt very welcome on this board when I first signed on and continue to feel welcome. I have participated in one other game board and cannot speak for their quality, in general, the other was discouraging, but this experience has been fantastic.
I have read and enjoyed thoroughly many of the AARs on this board. I promise to make a sincere effort from this point on to offer more incouragement to those who are writing.
Even though LD has posted most of this information in the general info FAQ about the forum, a good thread about successfully starting an AAR can be found at:
Losing your AAR Virginity...the nice way
Just ignore the extraneous stuff about shooter girls, etc.
And who wrote it? Only the most selfless guy in the entire forum.
Losing your AAR Virginity...the nice way
Just ignore the extraneous stuff about shooter girls, etc.
And who wrote it? Only the most selfless guy in the entire forum.
Let me add my thoughts to the mix here. First off I agree with LD, and MrT when they say that most of the vets do there best to post on newbie threads. I looked back on both of my AARs. I, like Oleg, started them off without the benefit of being well known around here. My Prussian AAR was my first post ever. In my Ottoman AAR, MrT, a personal friend of mine, and King of Nines (has anyone seen him lately?) were the ONLY ones to post for the first 3 - 4 days, and I was quite prolific in posting updates I must say. LD was not far behind. With Prussia, I had a little more varied response, but MrT and LD were among the first to say something. MrT has something to say on every single AAR written since I have been here. LD is not quite as prolific, but close and always insightful.
On the other hand let me say this about Oleg's post. He did not name any names, and I think he may of spoke out of a combination of ignorance and frustration. Let's not be too hard on him.
As far as to what he said, I am not aware of any cliques around here. Sure some people have their favorite authors, who doesn't? As a whole this is a very inclusive community, and I am proud to be a member of it. Also as it has been said above, established authors have earned whatever built in audiences they have through extensive networking and/or a quality body of work. If any newbie wants to have the same, keep churning out good material, and NETWORK.
I remember when I started my AAR. I saw the suggestions to network and was a bit reluctant. What I found was if I consistently provided feedback, many would return the favor (not as many as I liked, but quite a few).
Also, as a note to all: Since I started this thread, I feel at least somewhat responsible for what has happened here. This was NOT WHAT I INTENDED. This not a thread for anyone (newbie or vet) to whine "why aren't you guys reading my story?" Let's keep it to intelligent discussion on how to increase feedback in light of the recent explosion of quality authors.
Thanks,
Craig
On the other hand let me say this about Oleg's post. He did not name any names, and I think he may of spoke out of a combination of ignorance and frustration. Let's not be too hard on him.
As far as to what he said, I am not aware of any cliques around here. Sure some people have their favorite authors, who doesn't? As a whole this is a very inclusive community, and I am proud to be a member of it. Also as it has been said above, established authors have earned whatever built in audiences they have through extensive networking and/or a quality body of work. If any newbie wants to have the same, keep churning out good material, and NETWORK.
I remember when I started my AAR. I saw the suggestions to network and was a bit reluctant. What I found was if I consistently provided feedback, many would return the favor (not as many as I liked, but quite a few).
Also, as a note to all: Since I started this thread, I feel at least somewhat responsible for what has happened here. This was NOT WHAT I INTENDED. This not a thread for anyone (newbie or vet) to whine "why aren't you guys reading my story?" Let's keep it to intelligent discussion on how to increase feedback in light of the recent explosion of quality authors.
Thanks,
Craig
He also has significant responsibilities as a mod. He simply can't...and it's all volunteer work, he isn't paid...so what you see him do is out of the goodness of his own heart, not out of mandate...
Sorry, but it struck a nerve...and a tender one at that. When I think of all the time I spend reading other people's AARs, only to see the efforts get slammed...even if not directly and out of ignorance...well, I can tell you that you'd be pissed off too. You'll note that I pointed out that this wasn't an isolated instance or the only expression of such exhasperation. The continual complaints of newer people here to the supposed lack of response drives me nuts. It will likely continue to do so, though I will (I promise) not allow myself the liberty of "venting" like this very often (LD hopes); but I must say that every time I see it I feel as though the efforts - and I can promise you that they are not insignificant - that I and others put into trying to make each new author feel welcome, are being thrown into the trash can.
Not at all. You started a thread that asked why the feedback was sub-standard. We (as a whole) responded. I think that the net result has a great deal of potential for positive results in the "review idea", but I cannot - and will not - stand by while there is a apparent "slandering" of the veterans who have put a great deal of time and effort into encouraging newer writers, whether the origin of that "slander" is an informed opinion or not. Period.
If people want responses to their AARs then they should be prepared to give as good - and, more importantly, as much - as they get. That they've gotten as much reaction and support as they have - usually without reciprocation, I might add - can only be a testament to the beneficent and generous nature of the "veterans" who are all-too-frequently singled out as being so deficient and uncaring. That is what gets my....goat! Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone
To return to the point at hand: How to increase your feedback...?
1. Take the time and trouble to respond to people who comment in your thread. If they've taken the time to read it so far, the least that you can do is to thank them for doing so. That's only common courtesy.
2. Take the time and trouble to actually be something less than self-servient and read other people's material and make inciteful comments when and where you can. There's nothing like a reader to pique one's interest, encourage you to keep going, and also to inspire you to reciprocate.
Merely following those two caveats will (eventually) garner you a readership beyond most people's wildest dreams...and will quickly make you one of the in crowd.
Will the proposed "reviews" increase your readersip? Fractionally at best, in my opinion - not that it is a bad idea...merely that I don't see it as being a vehicle for increasing interest much beyond the short term. Complying to 1 and 2 above will - in my opinion - stand you in better stead and will quickly endear you to a very large number of authors.
Frankly, I don't think that's all that much to ask.
-------------------------------------------
Okay, I've vented now, and the normal MrT will be returned to you. I'm off to the 7th plane of hell where I normally reside....I hear we're having a "politician roast" (similar to Dean Martin's affairs except at the end we get to eat the guest) and I'd hate to miss it.
Agreed. LD simply can't be as prolific as MrT (most of us can't, but we don't have the excuse LD does). LD, and Warspite both do an EXCELLENT job keeping this forum a welcoming and exciting place. Not mention, both do find the time to check in on the various writings quite often.
Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see all the work put in by you and the other vets. I understand your frustration. Please don't stop. You are a large reason that many join the community here and actually stick around.
Agreed. Just thought I'd post it here to emphasize the point.
Perhaps. You may pick up an extra reader or two, but I don't think it is realistic to expect to be a "best seller" just because of a review.
I'm not saying this project is without merit (otherwise why would I and all the others put so much effort into it?). It will be a valuable tool to those that want to improve their writing. We should be up and running soon. Look for the reviews to start by Monday or Tuesday. (I hope)
Last edited:
Jesus.
I sure didn´t mean to upset anyone.
The reason for my statement i agree, was mostly frustation and having one shitty ass day.
So, according to some people´s wishes i hereby retract my statement.
EDIT: Now that i´m more collected, I realize I was expecting more from others than I myself was contributing.
I sincerely apologize.
I sure didn´t mean to upset anyone.
The reason for my statement i agree, was mostly frustation and having one shitty ass day.
So, according to some people´s wishes i hereby retract my statement.
EDIT: Now that i´m more collected, I realize I was expecting more from others than I myself was contributing.
I sincerely apologize.